Allahabad High Court
Keshav Ram vs Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of ... on 22 May, 2024
Author: Rajan Roy
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:38914-DB
Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3658 of 2024
Petitioner :- Keshav Ram
Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Railway , New Delhi And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- R.K.S. Chauhan
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record.
Heard Shri R.K.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.B. Pandey, learned Senior Counsel and Deputy Solicitor General of India assisted by Shri Varun Pandey, learned counsel for the Union of India.
The only contention raised by Shri R.K.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Tribunal did not consider the other grievances as detailed in the Original Application which were not related to the post retiral dues and has only considered the claim with regard to the post retiral dues and held that the same were paid within 60 days of voluntarily retirement, therefore, it can not be said that the payment was delayed. Consequently, no interest is payable thereon. He has invited our attention to Para 9 of the supplementary affidavit filed in this writ petition as also Para 4.5 of the Original Application wherein similar grievance was raised, however, from the relief clause of the Original Application which has been decided we find that no relief analogous to this pleading have been claimed before the Tribunal. The relief Clause of the Original Application reads as under:-
"8. Relief Sought:
That for the facts and grounds stated above, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased :-
(i) To issue an order or direction to the respondents to pay the Provident Fund and interest on Capital Amount of Rs. 36,93,527/- (Thirty Six Lakh Ninety Three Thousand Five Hundred Twenty Seven) to the applicant within a stipulated time framed by this Hon'ble Tribunal.
(ii) To issue an order or direction to the opposite parties to pay the compensation to the applicant for harassment and mental agony.
(iii) To issue an order or direction, as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the applicant along with exemplary costs."
A relief not prayed for could not have been granted in Original Application, therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment, however, if there are any other grievances relief in respect of which was not prayed for in the Original Application and which in fact was confined to the payment of certain provident fund and interest etc. and if it is otherwise permissible in law we leave it open for the petitioner to claim such relief of interest on delayed payment of other service dues separately; whether before the Tribunal or before the Authority concerned.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
.
(Om Prakash Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)
Order Date :- 22.5.2024
R.K.P.
